Of course, we should do GoF research very carefully and with proper safeguards. But saying that it should be banned completely is a different kind of proposal. I have no idea how valuable is GoF research as these things are very complicated but it is not always easy to predict future benefits.
I am less concerned about some occasional leaks. Covid might have leaked from the lab (with or without GoF research) but what I understand, potentially it could have arisen naturally too. Every walking immunosuppressed individual (e.g., HIV patient with poor adherence to medication or organ transplant recipient) is a breeding place of new viral mutations. In the past such people didn't live long. Today due to improved medical care their numbers are increasing significantly. I wouldn't suggest that we should stop providing medical care to such people and let them die as soon as possible out of fear that they could leak some kind of mutated supervirus.
Let's say 7 million died from COVID, which is about what the Worldometer figure is at. If there was even a 10% chance that this research caused the lab leak, then that's about 700,000 deaths! Plus a considerable amount of inconvenience, expense, rage and so on.
COVID was extremely bad, like dropping multiple high-yield nuclear bombs on major cities. There might be some unclear benefits from risky activities like flying armed nuclear bombers over major cities and hoping there's no accident. I could imagine that's convenient for the flight crew, they can use nearby airport infrastructure which is vaguely realistic if you want to disperse your nuclear forces and increase survivability...
But these benefits don't outweigh the gigantic costs and consequences! Unclear benefits don't cut it. We shouldn't be doing GoF work at all, let alone in the slapdash, devil-may-care way we've been doing it. You wouldn't leave nuclear bombs lying around at major airports without a very good reason.
This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a
court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to
optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.
The weekly Culture War threads host the most
controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are
appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy;
if in doubt, post!
Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts.
You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.
Why are you called The Motte?
A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently,
it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey",
originally identified by
philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial
but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens
this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for
the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired
propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."
On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.
New post guidelines
If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it.
A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts
such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a
submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).
Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or
significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Of course, we should do GoF research very carefully and with proper safeguards. But saying that it should be banned completely is a different kind of proposal. I have no idea how valuable is GoF research as these things are very complicated but it is not always easy to predict future benefits.
I am less concerned about some occasional leaks. Covid might have leaked from the lab (with or without GoF research) but what I understand, potentially it could have arisen naturally too. Every walking immunosuppressed individual (e.g., HIV patient with poor adherence to medication or organ transplant recipient) is a breeding place of new viral mutations. In the past such people didn't live long. Today due to improved medical care their numbers are increasing significantly. I wouldn't suggest that we should stop providing medical care to such people and let them die as soon as possible out of fear that they could leak some kind of mutated supervirus.
Let's say 7 million died from COVID, which is about what the Worldometer figure is at. If there was even a 10% chance that this research caused the lab leak, then that's about 700,000 deaths! Plus a considerable amount of inconvenience, expense, rage and so on.
COVID was extremely bad, like dropping multiple high-yield nuclear bombs on major cities. There might be some unclear benefits from risky activities like flying armed nuclear bombers over major cities and hoping there's no accident. I could imagine that's convenient for the flight crew, they can use nearby airport infrastructure which is vaguely realistic if you want to disperse your nuclear forces and increase survivability...
But these benefits don't outweigh the gigantic costs and consequences! Unclear benefits don't cut it. We shouldn't be doing GoF work at all, let alone in the slapdash, devil-may-care way we've been doing it. You wouldn't leave nuclear bombs lying around at major airports without a very good reason.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link